But using his web rankings as proof I know more people are reading his site than others.

Google site ranking aren't an indication of popularity of visits.Google publish some interesting documents on how to get good rankings and visitor numbers don't figure much. More significant are the number of links to and from the site and their relevance. So ironically every time someone says he's rubbish and provides a link to the offending page, his rankings go up.It's an interesting site to look at to see how you can build a Google ranking without any quality content.

I do not understand how what i think and how this whole polling is going to help you.

So, asking others about their opinion about someone else's opinion is not going to help you.

How could you possibly think this hasn't helped me? I went from: "Wow for a number 2 post on google? I really disagree with some stuff he says. Wonder if anyone else feels like me, or I'm just too inexperienced to know better" to "Yeah, mixed reviews, pinches of salt, not really applicable to me, kinda goofy photos, probably won't find myself back there again for a little while."

The only thing that is going to help you is learning enough yourself first, so that you can properly understand what others are saying, and then decide by yourself.

I did learn enough first? By asking you here, I now understand what you're saying? I did decide by myself based off others' input? You keep selling yourself short for some reason...I got the information I was looking for, I'm not sure why that comes as a surprise for you. The community seems very helpful in this regard, and especially willing to help newer people like myself.

“I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. ……………………….I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun…..”

“As mentioned above, if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof), remember that no one goes back in and edits old reviews as they get old. If I say I use something, I did when I wrote it, but years later, probably don't. “

He’s devised a clever statement to excuse his inaccurate proclamations.

Google site ranking aren't an indication of popularity of visits.Google publish some interesting documents on how to get good rankings and visitor numbers don't figure much. More significant are the number of links to and from the site and their relevance. So ironically every time someone says he's rubbish and provides a link to the offending page, his rankings go up.It's an interesting site to look at to see how you can build a Google ranking without any quality content.

1. Yes, we know what google is and how it works, but we also know googles formula for ranking is a closely guarded secret that changes with the landscape/times. We're not talking some flash in the pan site that's #1 today and gone tomorrow. We're talking about one of the first photography sites ever which has show a sustained popularity for over a decade as indicated by their google rankings. If there was nothing to this site, no quality content as you say, then this site wouldn't be where it is today. Or yesterday. Or the day before. You're welcome to think differently but in doing so I feel you're missing out on the value you personally could take from this site. And granted, I don't know you well enough to know what you personally could benefit from, I'm just going on the supposition that we all can find something useful from studying success.

If there was nothing to this site, no quality content as you say, then this site wouldn't be where it is today.

One of things Google raise it's ranking on is the amount of content, so it's not a question of there being 'nothing' to it, there's tons of it. Which why it rises to the top. Adding more all the time helps that and feeds the stay at the top status. To Google the new pages seem relevant (ie it's not a link farm which they disapprove of), but an intelligent knowledgeable eye might think that new reviews of long discontinued kit really aren't sufficiently relevant to justify the ranking success the bots give the site.

Consider him as one of a great many sources of information about (fill in the blank). Also consider that whatever someone else says, the camera and lens you buy has to fit your needs, not someone else's priorities. For example, I go to the Polish site Lenstips for some specialized information that is rarely mentioned in other reviews, coma. Now, most people don't give a rat's ass about coma, but astrophotography shooters care about the degree of this particular lens aberration, which if bad enough can stretch off-axis stars to be oblong. Some good lenses have lots of coma, other good lenses have very little coma.

That being said, once you edit that out, his info on Leica lenses is pretty good, at times.

I do like how he begs for money (help my growing family) through links to buy things, then has tehse pages devoted to his twin turbo Porsche Cayane.

He's growing in my estimation by the minute! I don't have even a white Porsche 911, but might accept an older, red or black 911 PicNic-Tray one as a gift... But an SUV of any sort would be pushing my faith hard.

He's growing in my estimation by the minute! I don't have even a white Porsche 911, but might accept an older, red or black 911 PicNic-Tray one as a gift... But an SUV of any sort would be pushing my faith hard.

Google site ranking aren't an indication of popularity of visits.Google publish some interesting documents on how to get good rankings and visitor numbers don't figure much. More significant are the number of links to and from the site and their relevance. So ironically every time someone says he's rubbish and provides a link to the offending page, his rankings go up.It's an interesting site to look at to see how you can build a Google ranking without any quality content.

There are sites which generate bad publicity on purpose (by bad customer service), because they have found out it improves their "Google rating" which in turn generates more business by making them more visible, and customers do not care to investigate why they are on the top of the list.

One of things Google raise it's ranking on is the amount of content, so it's not a question of there being 'nothing' to it, there's tons of it. Which why it rises to the top. Adding more all the time helps that and feeds the stay at the top status. To Google the new pages seem relevant (ie it's not a link farm which they disapprove of), but an intelligent knowledgeable eye might think that new reviews of long discontinued kit really aren't sufficiently relevant to justify the ranking success the bots give the site.A sustained notoriety might be a better way of putting it.

1. Volume of content is only one of the many variables Google uses in it's formula and no one knows how much it's weighted, and Google ain't talkin.. What Google does tell us is it's not just one area of a site that brings it to the top. With tens of thousands of photography sites across the web to think that someone could just post volume and get on top? Nah.. What he is doing is hitting enough of the variables across the board to earn his ranking. This can't be denied.

2. The only way possible for Google to determine relevance across a broad swath of topics is by measuring it's popularity as evidenced by site visits.

3. You're speaking from your own needs only. But there are many needs out there. Look on Ebay about how much old kit is being scarfed up daily. You don't think Ken saw the rapid growth and popularity of Ebay and that people were buying tons of old kit and there were no current (internet) reviews out there? The only reviews on that stuff might be found in copies of old magazines on microfiche somewhere. OR.. when the Micro 4/3's exploded and he started reviewing old lenses enthusiasts were using (and wanting to buy on ebay) to get better performance.. do you think this is an accident? The guy is anything but stupid, he's seeing things others aren't and serving a segment of photography IN ADDITION to modern gear.. and reaping the rewards. Not to mention people in poorer countries can't afford the latest and greatest, but they still want to enjoy photography, so he reviews old gear and gives an opinion.. often the only opinion.

Well, my walkabout camera is a D5100, which is only a hundred dollars more than D3100, and it was one of my best investments in photography and computer universe. My only regret is that I didn't have it twenty years ago.

Anyway, I just looked up Ken's review on this camera which is spot on. I agree completely with him that it produces fantastic pictures and is one of the best bargains of 2013. His photo samples in that review are a little bit too red and vivid for a Canadian taste, but if I lived in California, who knows, I might also dial in the wild and vivid camera settings.

Well, my walkabout camera is a D5100, which is only a hundred dollars more than D3100, and it was one of my best investments in photography and computer universe. My only regret is that I didn't have it twenty years ago.

Anyway, I just looked up Ken's review on this camera which is spot on. I agree completely with him that it produces fantastic pictures and is one of the best bargains of 2013. His photo samples in that review are a little bit too red and vivid for a Canadian taste, but if I lived in California, who knows, I might also dial in the wild and vivid camera settings.

We're with you on this side of the border as well. I've long wondered about Ken's propensity towards over saturated images. Is it possible he hasn't yet discovered how to profile his monitor, or maybe his actual eyes see certain colours less saturated than others (a fairly common occurrence) thereby requiring a boost in levels similar to the way someone hard of hearing pumps up the volume making listening levels uncomfortable to others? Or maybe he's just making an over the top statement as he tends to do elsewhere.. dunno.

maybe his actual eyes see certain colours less saturated than others (a fairly common occurrence) thereby requiring a boost in levels

If somebody sees a certain color less saturated than others, then a normally calibrated monitor would also look natural to him. How would he know his vision is not true but a(n over)corrected one is more real? We can not even know if we see colors the same way at all, but still a good and true monitor always looks the most equal to real life for all of us.

If somebody sees a certain color less saturated than others, then a normally calibrated monitor would also look natural to him. How would he know his vision is not true but a(n over)corrected one is more real? We can not even know if we see colors the same way at all, but still a good and true monitor always looks the most equal to real life for all of us.

Good point.. I'm just grasping at straws trying to figure out why he over saturates most of his work. Maybe it's more of a color blind issue. if you can't see the colors you can't know when they're adjusted right. It's perplexing..

We're with you on this side of the border as well. I've long wondered about Ken's propensity towards over saturated images. Is it possible he hasn't yet discovered how to profile his monitor, or maybe his actual eyes see certain colours less saturated than others (a fairly common occurrence) thereby requiring a boost in levels similar to the way someone hard of hearing pumps up the volume making listening levels uncomfortable to others? Or maybe he's just making an over the top statement as he tends to do elsewhere.. dunno.

You are assuming that the purpose of photography is to capture the world as it is perceived by most people. I think his "over the top" color is his choice. A "Fine Art " choice. Some would say that accurate color is boring color. Unless of course, it is necessary for a client and their needs. That is a very different ball of wax.Peter